The case for private militaries

The news that ex-Blackwater guards received multi-decade sentences in connection with a 2007 shooting would seem to cement the popular narrative about private military contractors: rogue, out-of-control forces who think they are above the law. It would seem that the last thing we need is more of them.

And yet, if anything, the 21st century might be the best time for a return to private militaries. Let me explain.

The first thing to note is that private militaries have always existed, in one form or another. Greek city states and the Roman Empire relied extensively on mercenaries. They were a popular feature of medieval and Renaissance warfare — and, in some cases, like Northern Italy, practically the only one. The decline of the mercenary army coincides with the rise of the nation state — and particularly the invention of total war, the most murderous concept invented by man. Of course, mercenaries aren't going to engage in total war — that would risk too many assets. It takes a state to endeavor something like that.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Indeed, part of what makes mercenaries so useful is precisely this prudence. Mercenaries are businessmen. That means that, all else being equal, they should be careful to prevent casualties and damage to their equipment, since it is their own money on the line.

But what makes mercenaries so interesting in the 21st century?

A simple fact: Like it or not, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. is going to be involved in dirty, small arms wars all over the world. Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Iraq... Isolationists might pine and scream for a time when the U.S. just ignores the rest of the world, but the simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. is the only existing or plausible guarantor of global security. And this security is increasingly threatened by insurgencies and small arms wars.

Another simple fact is that, for political reasons, the U.S. is extremely reluctant to allow soldier casualties. The entire war in Afghanistan killed less U.S. service members than some days of World War II, and yet that historically tiny number of casualties caused a big drop in popularity for the war. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. wants to fight wars without casualties.

And that creates a problem, because small arms wars really can only be fought with foot soldiers. Drones and F-22s aren't going to do it. At some point, you need to put boots on the ground.

You can see the dilemma. The U.S. is going to be involved in situations where it needs to put boots on the ground somewhere, yet the U.S. is never going to want to do it.

The solution is obvious. The American public doesn't react to the death of private security guards the same way that it reacts to the death of uniformed Marines (even if the private security guard used to be a uniformed Marine).

Mercenary armies carry much less overhead than the ginormously expensive U.S. military, and would cost less. And while it might be the case that some private contractors have committed atrocities, I'm aware of no evidence to suggest contractors commit more atrocities than uniformed soldiers.

Back when he ran Blackwater, its notorious founder Erik Prince suggested building a brigade-sized force that could have stopped the genocide in Sudan. Politics made it impossible to send a U.S. or a U.N. force, while countless people died in horrible circumstances. He called it "relief with teeth." It was a good idea then, and it's a good idea now.